Comments (29) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Margueritem said, about 1 month ago

   I like the last two theories.

2. 

   ejcapulet said, about 1 month ago

   Well, Marg, I think that second one has some merit.

3. 

   Margueritem said, about 1 month ago

   ejcapulet, you’re right, it does have merit.

4. 

   Edcole1961 said, about 1 month ago

   If Brewster was religious, he’d believe in the string cheese theory. It’s not scientific because it assumes bovine intervention.

5. 

   D-i-c-e-R said, about 1 month ago

   The universe is a ball of string that’s become unraveled and God is cat.

6. 

   William Tidler Jr. said, about 1 month ago

   Don’t string me along…

7. 

   marchman said, about 1 month ago

   Nope the universe is a yo-yo string and we keep going up and down

8. 

   bmwk12ltc said, about 1 month ago

   Marchman if that’s true then Tommy Smothers is a leader of the true nature of God.

9. 

   rdh288 said, about 1 month ago

   Dr. Mel is wrong! String theory is the theory of particles that make up quarks. Quarks are the particles that make up protons, electrons, and neutrons. He said “one type of vibration may produce an electron” Wrong!… Does anybody care?

10. 

    Doctor Toon said, about 1 month ago

    I just had a friend ask me what I knew about string theory a few weeks ago.
    Think I’ll E-mail this one to him, probably makes more sense than my answer.

11. 

    Dracip said, about 1 month ago

    rdh288, I do. Edcole, you should be ashamed of yourself, I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read it! And dicer, yes, that would explain a lot. God is Cat. It’s all so clear now….

12. 

    Richard said, about 1 month ago

    The can and string theory: The universe is a can and string and communicates with itself when it can, but mostly with crank calls.

13. 

    ColoradoRider said, about 1 month ago

    I prefer the Kite Theory to the 11 dimensional M theory… Charlie Brown, where are you when we need you?!

14. 

    jtpozenel said, about 1 month ago

    rdh288: Yes! Yes! Yes! Today’s strip makes me soooo angry!

15. 

    dr.mel said, about 1 month ago

    Sorry, rdh288 and jtpozenel, but Dr. Mel is right. The electron is a lepton, which, like the quark, is a fundamental particle.

16. 

    SherlockWatson said, about 1 month ago

    All the universe is strings, and someone out there is a-pickin’ and a-grinnin’.

17. 

    bmwk12ltc said, about 1 month ago

    SherlockWatson’s right, the universe is a country-western song.

18. 

    Trebor39 said, about 1 month ago

    And country-western songs tell it like it is!

19. 

    dr.mel said, about 1 month ago

    To expand on an earlier post, Dr. Mel had it right. This is from The Elegant Universe on PBS Nova website:
    “The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string vibrating another way, and so on.”
    From the website:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

20. 

    puddleglum1066 said, about 1 month ago

    The best thing about string theory is that it’s both unproven and unprovable. The same PBS Nova show that Dr. Mel quotes also observes that it’s impossible to construct an experiment that would actually prove the theory, which is why some scientists say it’s not really science but philosophy. That makes it the perfect scientific theory–on the one hand, it gives a model that seems to correctly describe the things we actually CAN observe, but the underlying theory is untestable and therefore allows an eternity of argument…

21. 

    dr.mel said, about 1 month ago

    Good point, puddleglum 1066.

22. 

    Roger said, about 1 month ago

    bleeep, where is Schrodinger’s cat when you need him?

23. 

    drwatson said, about 1 month ago

    rdh288 is correct. You can split an electron into spinons and halons.

24. 

    dr.mel said, about 1 month ago

    No, he’s not. Spinons and holons (not halons) are not quarks.

25. 

    Ray C said, about 1 month ago

    I’d never let myself be tied down to this kind of theory.

26. 

    pbarnrob said, about 1 month ago

    In the last nn years or so, chemistry has become physics, and physics has become metaphysics.

    I signed-up for a physics major, because metaphysics wasn’t in the catalog. Then for electronics, to feed myself until it would be.

27. 

    Johanan Rakkav said, about 1 month ago

    Unfortunately (for some people’s worldviews anyway), natural science has supernatural implications. BIG ones. For that matter, it doesn’t matter what field you’re in - you’ll run head-on into metaphysical implications sooner or later.

    Much depends on what you mean by “proof”. The only way we have of deciding between worldviews (scientific or otherwise) is Occam’s Razor, which is more than “proof” enough. But humans have a real aversion to following Occam’s Razor where it leads…because it leads in a very specific and ultimately inevitable direction which most humans don’t like very much.

28. 

    Orgelspieler said, about 1 month ago

    Rakkav, you didn’t mention that all too many humans try to bend Occam’s razor before they ever try to use it, which not only makes their logic faulty, but also really ticks Occam off whenever he tries to shave.

29. 

    MisngNOLA said, about 1 month ago

    People don’t want to use Occam’s Razor because it will cut the strings and string theory would just fall apart. Or fall down like Pinocchio did when his strings were cut.